Cox Cf

Pulpal response to chemically cured and experimental light-cured glass ionomer cavity liners

This investigation evaluated the effects of an experimental light-cured glass ionomer (LCGI) cavity liner and chemically cured Ketac-Bond glass ionomer restorative material on the pulpal tissues of monkeys. Class V cavities were prepared in 71 teeth of three adult Macaca mulatta monkeys at 7- and 35-day intervals. Ketac-Bond or LCGI cavity liners were placed in cavities with the smear layer intact (groups I and II) or with the smear layer removed (groups III and IV) and were restored with composite resin. Tissues were acquired, sectioned at 7 microns, stained for microscopic evaluation, or prepared for SEM evaluation. No statistically significant differences between materials existed at either time interval, regardless of smear layer presence. Histopathologic results demonstrated minimal pulpal reactions for groups I through IV. SEM analysis showed tenacious bonding of the LCGI material to prepared cavity walls, with absence of contraction gap formation. The results indicated excellent pulpal responses to both materials.

Pulpal response to threaded pin and retentive slot techniques: A pilot investigation

This investigation compared pulpal response to threaded pin techniques with response to retentive slot techniques. The teeth were restored with composite resin. Twenty-four teeth were assigned to three treatment groups in one Macaca mulatta monkey. Ten teeth (group 1) received 32 TMS 0.021-inch self-threading pins. Ten teeth (group II) received circumferential slot retention 1 mm deep, 0.5 mm inside the dentinoenamel junction. Four teeth (group III) served as controls. Groups I and II were restored with composite resin. Fourteen days later, the teeth were removed, demineralized, serially sectioned, and stained with hematoxylin and eosin. Chi-square analysis indicated more pulp inflammation when self-threading pins were used (p less than 0.5). Pins placed within 0.5 mm of the pulp elicited severe inflammatory responses, and those placed further than 1 mm had minimal effect. Little correlation existed between remaining dentin thickness and adverse pulp response when slot retention was used.

A Timeline of Biological Assessments: Our Nonspatial Continuum

Much of our dental history is recognized through oral tradition, which has led to myths and misconceptions regarding the efficacy of early restorative agents. Dental biomaterial history has tended to report only certain aspects research in a few textbooks that are expensive and not readily available to the larger dental audience. Our purpose is to provide a detailed peer-reviewed document, which provides a chronological account of our in vitro and in vitro biological continuum. This document follows a published historical chronological timeline of biomaterial testing literature beginning with its little known inception in 1779. Many of the early dental restorative agents evolved due to their anodyne capacity to alleviate tooth pain and provide a modest bacteriostatic capacity. Those that were successful were modified as temporary cavity filling agents and evolved to more permanent fillings. Unfortunately, many of the early agents e.g. antimony, arsenic, asbestos, canthrides, formalin, mercury, mustard, phenol to name a few were toxic to the tooth and supporting periodontal tissues as well as failing to support lost tooth structure. The National Institute of Dental Research required biomaterial testing in the late 1940’s. Even today, the agency permits many pre-1950 agents via the grandfather clause for commercial inclusion and clinical use, while requiring all new post-1958 agents to pass both in-vitro and in vivo testing hurdles. We routinely place restorative agents that infiltrate in graded interphases to interdiffuse into vital enamel, dentine and even cementum by forming a unique biomimetic substrate that mimics the color and opacity of the human tooth. Our biological continuum is still evolving with technologies that will continue to change our clinical future. Our profession has been the global benefactor of dynamic change. Unfortunately, our biomaterials testing status quo is not acceptable as many toxic agents e.g. formalin still remain in our clinics.